What Is ‘A Normal Life’?
Is this normal?
Friends, Mr Netanyahu, leader of Israel, made the claim a day or so ago that the 300,000 plus Jewish Settlers in the West Bank had the right to live ‘normal lives.’
By this he meant that these settlements, illegally built on Palestinian land, should be allowed to grow naturally, expand like other towns in other countries. Of course, he was really arguing that Israel should not have to accept Obama’s edict that Israel stop settlement building, an edict that Israel has ignored.
Now, on the surface, this seems like a reasonable demand. However, if one adds into the equation the fact that Palestinians have lived under sixty years of brutal occupation, that they live in poverty, that they have little freedom of movement, that they have no rights, that Israel dictates every breath they take, then the demand seems ridiculous.
More broadly, what exactly is a normal life in this crazy world? If we could take a quick magic carpet ride across the world, we would find people living many different ways. People live in rain forests, in deserts, in frozen wastelands, on tropical islands, in high mountains, on level plains, in tiny towns, in huge cities, in communes, in cardboard shelters or on park benches, in luxurious mansions.
People across the world are dying of hunger or from preventable diseases while others are obese and dying of preventable heart attacks and cancer. People are happy, depressed, mentally ill, suicidal, on drugs, off drugs, doing exercise or being couch potatoes, planning careers or robberies or rapes, plotting how to win elections or initiate coups, putting the final touches to the preparations for another war or how to manipulate the stock market, working out how to get the neighbour’s wife into bed or molest one of her children, kneeling down on their knees praying to some mythical being, being caned for transgressions or being tortured..and so it goes on and on.
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a ‘normal life.’ There are simply millions of variations. What is normal for one may be deviant or anathema for others.
The world is filled with diversity. And division. And gross inequality. There are some winners and many losers. That’s normal! Or is it?
People should have the right to choose their lifestyle. People should have rights. People should share equally in the world’s bounty. People should have freedom.
Palestinians and billions of others don’t!
Equality, wouldn’t that be something?
But how would the fat cats ever survive?
Hope all is well with you! Cheers!
Reply
How wonderful it would be if normal meant that everyone could live in a place that was safe from violence with enough food and adequate shelter and all the many other things that so many in developed countries take for granted.
Here in the US even main stream news is talking about a “new normal” which is homelessness, hunger and lack of health care. That is for the middle class. For much of the rest of the world and the poor and working class here that has been normal for a long time.
When I look at much of the rest of the world my normal is very rich, compared to the truely rich I am poor.
What makes me angry is when people who have so much complain about how hard they have it. Not that they can’t buy food ,but rather that they can’t afford the latest gadget on the market.
While so many people are really hurting in our current recession some good is coming from it with less importance being place on buying more and more stuff.
A new normal in which consuming less stuff by those who already have too much can only be a good thing.
Reply
Coffee, the fats cats wouldn’t survive because they get their kicks from flaunting the fact that they have ‘everything’ while most folk have little or nothing. What sick creatures they are!
Jeannie, the advertising industry has a lot to answer for. It has helped to bring about our shallow, greed-based, me-first world. And the MSM has turned lying and distorting the truth into an art form. It’s no wonder that most people are brain-dead!
Reply
Helen Brown, author and edior, taught me to understand that most peple at social events are uncomfortable being around older women, who are unescorted. She is an atheist and is very open with her explanations about this. As we know, it seems ‘forever’ that barren women have considered abnormal.
It is labor day weekend here. Calling the act of delivering a child, as being in labor, is certainly right to the point. HAVE A GREAT LABOR DAY WEEKEND!
Reply
“Did Hitler Want War?” by Patrick Buchanon, can be found at yahoo news. I know that it is considered ‘normal’ to you, David G., to be scolding about the USA not having entered into the fray, we now call WWII, and that if there was not same, you would be now speaking German or Japanese, and although Buchanon is not considered normal by most, I invite you to give thought to the facts he presents in this artic le, David, and all. Thanks so much.
Reply
Not SOONER having entered — corr.
Reply
Therese, I guess the ‘barren’ women syndrome must have its roots in the time when life was short and each community needed women to keep producing so the tribe would survive. In an overpopulated world this kind of thinking is anachronistic!
Do you know why the U.S. delayed entry to WW2, Therese, while most of Europe was burning? It’s something that has always intrigued me.
Reply
Grace Reply:
September 18th, 2009 at 5:20 am
The subject of barren women vs fertile women is one I am interested in knowing more about. For many years of a girl’s and woman’s life, her ability to bear children is both valuable, but also oftentimes a burden. A barren woman is not valuable for obvious reasons, however there are also no worries about getting pregnant – every month! If anyone were to weigh in on this I would like to know. And not to be biased but alot of a women’s value in society is determined both by social mores and men themselves. Whether or not, a woman could or could not bear a child, would make no difference to a womans value in an all woman world, imo.
In our current world: How valuable or desireable is a woman who cannot bear children? Does it depend on what other skills she may have? Or does human life itself have inherent value? Is it always what a person can contribute? Why do we bother with all it takes to keep a comatose person alive? Ah, so many questins today. Thanks, all.
Reply
The US delayed entry for two reasons, as I understand it, David.
One is that many US capitalists supported Hitler and wanted to see him succeed. They apparently thought that Hitler would not attack the US, and there is reason to believe that he wouldn’t have. There would have been a gentlemen’s agreement to divide the world between the 2 empires.
The other reason is that stated by Harry Truman, when he was in the Senate. You know, the “liberal” reason, as opposed to the outright fascist reason. They wanted the Germans to kill as many Russians as possible, while the Russians killed the Germans.
Then the US would swoop in and take the spoils.
And that is what happened. After the Russians fought the Germans, while losing 20 million people, and started winning and their troops started heading west, the US invaded from the west, racking up as much territory as they could before they met the Russians.
Then the US brags about “saving France” and prances around acting all uppity. It’s pretty outrageous.
Reply
David G Reply:
September 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Wage Laborer, your answer comes as a complete surprise to me. I guess I always thought there was some lofty or noble reason for the delay. To think there may have been some base reasons…well, things are never as they appear!
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Reply
Roosevelt had promised America that he will not get us involved in another world war; that was one of his platforms, and was that pushed by at least one of the Repu blicans that ran against him. I tend to think that the average joe and josephine here felt that WWI was enough, that we had no beef with Germany (once most Americans were of German descent), and wanted to give peace a chance as pacifists and isolationists. Certainly those of Irish descent had no desire to affiliate themself with Churchill and the British royals wars.
Reply
Yeah, David, I have a split personality.
There’s the rainbow loving, hearts and flowers part of me that wants all the people of the world to live in perfect harmony.
Then there’s the clear-eyed realist who sees ruling class ruthlessness for what it is, not what its propaganda declares it to be.
I was born in the month of Janus, maybe that helps.
Reply
Therese, thanks for your additional information. The tribal influence in world affairs is something that is often ignored.
Wagelaborer, I too have a split personality like you. It’s a difficult position to occupy even for someone like me who was born in May.
Reply
Therese’s input doesn’t apply to the foot-dragging of the US.
Yes, many Americans were against involving the US in the war. But the US DID enter the war in December 1941. And Roosevelt promised Stalin that the US would open a second front to help the USSR in their struggle against fascism.
And they did. Three and a half years later.
Reply